I have to admit, watching this clip, I was wondering more about the fidgeting of the guy speaking than what he was talking about. Is he on something? Is it just choppy film quality? Too much coffee? Results of choppy editing? Parkinson's?

Not sure if it's because the conversation going on is one I've heard too many times before to hold my attention or if he was just that distracting, but it amused me a little when I realized I was watching him jerk and gesture around more than I was listening to what he was saying after a few minutes. ...so I hope it's not Parkinson's. 'Cause that'd suck.

Anyway, as to the topic he brings up, I have to think this is preaching to the choir. Isn't it? I mean, how many people who read this Family-whatever-organization report (or even knew it existed) and believed it are likely to also come across this video? Of that subgroup, how many are likely to listen to this video? Of that subgroup, how many swayed?

Given that, is anything he's saying really new information to his expected audience?

Research it yourself Sabby if you want to be truly informed instead of learning one set of biases over another. Granted, he's a lot closer to being accurate than the family group was about a lot of these things (their study was crap, it's not even a study, just a research paper written full of cherry picked evidence), but some of what he says is nonsense too.

His response to the 10% thing was especially silly. Objecting to it on the basis that the percent varies from place to place is ridiculous (because it's pretty clear that the discussion is about averages in order to determine the prevalance). It's true that the 3% cited in response is also unlikely, but the 10% figure is half a century old information based on Kinsley's research (which had all sorts of problems with it). He really should've pulled out some numbers in response.

I think the last gallup poll I read on the prevalance of homosexuality put the number at around 6-7%, which is right between the 3 and 10 figures, not closer to the 10 as he said.

The shaking could also be marginally contained rage at having to fight for equality every day in a country that is supposedly founded on freedom. After reading the full report myself, (I always try to verify my information if I can) I am embarrassed that they could write such untrue things. I also do not like how misleadingly official they tried to make the Family Research Council website, as though it were government backed or something.

You are right though, the only ones likely to listen to what he has to say in his video are those already in disagreeance with the report.

He actually had a couple of inconsistencies himself. Int he first few minutes of the video, Richard points out some of the studies inconsistencies, such as "Gays in the Military." He shows two clips, one where the study writer Spriggs says he does not believe homosexuals should be in the armed forces, then another where Spriggs says he would prefer deporting of homosexuals over making more homosexuals US citizens. Richard then says this is an inconsistency, reasoning that if he wanted to deport homosexuals, wouldn't he endorse the military - which he says does the same thing - possibly killing them in the process as a "bonus?"

That's not very solid reasoning, IMHO. Richard neglects to point out that Spriggs was choosing between "less" or "more" gays with no third option; he was NOT necessarily saying we SHOULD deport them, just that if given a "YES or NO" choice, he'd pick yes. Also, I highly doubt he would ignore his belief that homosexuals would compromise the effectiveness of the armed forces in order to suggest indirectly murdering them via war. He's still a person, with morals, ethics, and compassion, regardless of his beliefs.

There was another misjudgment by Richard, where Spriggs espouses his belief int he study that homosexuals are not BORN gay, but are instead tricked into thinking that they are through childhood "environmental factors." Richard then shows a clip where Spriggs says "People do not choose to have same sex attraction..."

Once again, unsound reasoning by Richard. Even though "homosexuality-encouraging environmental factors" do not affect children by their own choice, Richard reasons that Spriggs is contradicting himself. He thinks that Spriggs is talking about the same concept; by Richard's reasoning, kids apparently choose what environment they are born into and grow up in, which is obviously fallacious.

NOTE that I do not support Spriggs, and I think he's dead wrong. I just wanted to point out that Richard's "objective, fair assessment" isn't as pure as he seems to think it is.

True he was quite inconsistent at times, and though I'm prone to agree with the spirit of his outrage, (as well as the rant, I do love a good rant) he's actual point was a bit lost I think in terms of logic. I'm all for venting, but at least have made sure your argument is solid. Doesn't even have to be new...which kind of makes it easier to create the arguments when I think about it, but hey.

That said, I do have to completely agree with the man for his emotional response. I (regrettably) hunted down this study and gave it a once over. Needless to say I was none to pleased, nor really all that surprised to be honest. I would have thought by now I would have been a bit past the crap that people like to spout, but this one certainly managed to get a rise out of, congrats to them for that one.

I'm not easily offended, but I was by that sadly enough so I get where he's coming from.

The Family Research Council has been publicly identified as a hate group.

Why would I listen to some council to tell me what values my family should have? Yes, because gay people ruin the integrity of marriage and families. Give me a break. What about the drunk people who meet in Vegas and decide to get married that night? Or a man who abuses his wife and children? They don't ruin the "integrity" of marriage?

In my opinion, I think the integrity of marriage is plenty ruined without gay people wanting to get married. You can't judge a person on who they love, it has nothing to do with their personalities or their abilities to love and stay married to someone else.